No agreement in pipeline case

April 18, 2008|By Scott Waltman, swaltman@aberdeennews.com

BRITTON - A crude oil pipeline is no threat to an aquifer in northwest Marshall County, a risk assessor said Thursday. Heidi Tillquist, an environmental toxicologist with a Colorado company called ENSR, testified in a hearing to determine whether it's necessary for TransCanada to use eminent domain to get 10 parcels of land in Marshall and Day counties. The hearing concluded Thursday evening. A judge's decision is more than 10 days away because that's how long attorneys were given to file legal briefs. Landowners who testified certainly don't agree with Tillquist. But, she said, their concerns about the James Aquifer being polluted in the event of a leak are unnecessary. Tillquist does not work for TransCanada, but is contracted to do work for the company. A leak into the aquifer - used as a source of drinking water is a major concern opponents have to the project. Heavily involved in a risk assessment of the pipeline route, Tillquist said surface water along the pipeline route is not from the aquifer. She said the aquifer is about 70 feet below the surface in that area and is separated by layers of sand and clay. The aquifer does reach the surface five or six miles to the east of the pipeline. A study that looked at the history of oil pipeline leaks showed that, on average, there would be a leak of 50 barrels of oil or more every seven years along the route. TransCanada officials said that total is high because they are using modern technology and monitoring equipment. Using the study averages, Tillquist said, the chance of a leak in the two miles nearest the aquifer is once ever 4,500 years. "I just don't see a practical way that a spill would enter or affect the James Aquifer," Tillquist said. Tillquist said she had never been in Marshall County before she authored the risk assessment. Scott Heidepriem, an attorney representing landowners opposed to the route, asked if a route to the east that avoids the aquifer would be safer. It was suggested by two South Dakota professors. Tillquist said she hadn't studied that option, but that she doesn't think it would be any better. For the most part, landowners raised their concerns - from potential leak damage to fence restoration after construction - during the first day and a half of the trial. Thursday afternoon, TransCanada officials dominated the testimony. TransCanada wants to build a pipeline of about 2,200 miles to ship crude oil from fields in the Canadian province of Alberta to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma. It hopes to start work this spring, but doesn't have access to all of the necessary land. Using eminent domain would allow the company to use land it doesn't yet have easements for in return for payment, even if the property owners are opposed to the line. TransCanada would not own the land. Mike Koski, a Florida-based engineering consultant for Trow Engineering, helped decide the pipeline's route. He said that the route to the east of the current one was not considered by TransCanada. Buster Gray, engineering and construction manager of the U.S. portion of the pipeline, said TransCanada could likely ease many of the concerns if the landowners would share their worries. Michael Burger and Raymond Anderson each expressed concerns Thursday that the pipeline would break native ground on their property. They said they want to protect that land because there isn't much of it left. Burger farms northwest of Britton. Anderson farms near Langford. Gray said that instance is one in which the company can only help to a certain degree. TransCanada would talk with soil conservation experts about what grass to plant after construction, he said. "We can't make it back exactly the way it was (before construction)," Gray said. "And we accept that." Burger said that if the pipeline crosses his land, it would divide a pasture he needs when his cattle graze. He said he needs all of that grass because his cattle might already overgraze the land. Gray said TransCanada would create areas where the cattle can pass back and forth even during construction. And if that weren't enough, he said the company would compensate Burger to rent another pasture and transport his livestock. Burger said his interactions with TransCanada have been few but pleasant. Other landowners along the proposed pipeline route have testified that land agents and surveyors have been difficult to deal with. Anderson said a land agent representing TransCanada told him to sign an easement or "get nothing." Generally, people who don't have easements with TransCanada have testified that easement negotiations curtailed after they expressed opposition to the pipeline. More than three-quarters of property owners who would be impacted by this year's construction in Marshall and Day counties have signed easements. Heidepriem said his clients should be entitled to the protection a thicker pipeline would offer. A thicker pipeline is required in more populated areas and is the standard in the United States. TransCanada got a permit to use pipe that's .386 inch thick along the route in the United States. Without it, the pipe would have been .429 inch think. This difference is about a millimeter. "So why not give it to them?" Heidepriem asked TransCanada engineer Meera Kothari, referring to the extra thickness property owners would like. "I'm not in a position to answer that question," Kothari said. Under intense questioning from Heidepriem, Kothari sometimes struggled or misspoke. She once said that a thicker line would not be safer before altering her response answering a question moments later. At that point, she said that there are instances in which a thicker line would be less apt to be punctured. The thinner line will be used along the route in Canada, too, Kothari said. A special permit was not needed in that country. TransCanada will have to use the thicker pipe in more populated areas because, Kothari said, the likelihood of it being punctured as the result of excavation is greater. Kothari said TransCanada is saving 10 percent on its steel costs by using the thinner pipe. But, she said, that's not the primary reason it is being used. Heidepriem scoffed at that suggestion. Rick Hastings, who farms between Britton and Hecla, testified that he would like to see the pipeline buried deeper than TransCanada's planned 4 feet. Hastings said that if the pipe were 6 feet below ground, it would be less likely that farm equipment would strike it. A TransCanada representative said code requires that the pipe be at least 2 1/2 feet below the surface. Industry standard is 3 feet, he said. Hastings also testified that he would be more comfortable giving TransCanada an easement narrower than the 50 feet the company is seeking. Other landowners along the route have offered similar testimony. Go online to read more about Thursday's pipeline hearing.